Talk:War Tour/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' Hello editors. I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and I'll have a requirements checklist and my analysis here when I am finished. Tim meh  !  18:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Checklist and analysis

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * This is probably the area of the article with the most problems, and there weren't many. I just had to correct a few small grammar, spelling, and formatting errors. Also, I did see a few red links, and I suggest removing them if the subjects aren't notable enough to be given articles.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * This was all good. The sources used are fine, and the references are formatted correctly.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I did remove two or three descriptive words as I was reading the article. These words seemed to present a positive POV of the tour and the concert film mentioned. I would advise against using words such as "spectacular" and "memorable", as they do not present a neutral point of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I did have to correct several things in the article. However, after doing so, I see that the article fulfills all the GA requirements, so I am passing it for GA status. Thanks and good luck on the article in the future. Tim  meh  !  19:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I did have to correct several things in the article. However, after doing so, I see that the article fulfills all the GA requirements, so I am passing it for GA status. Thanks and good luck on the article in the future. Tim  meh  !  19:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Other comments
Thanks very much for the review! I'm okay with all your changes, except for the removal of the 'spectacular' adjective for Red Rocks Amphitheatre. This isn't POV, but a simple statement of objective fact – the setting is stunning, and without stating that, the full effect of the concert in the rain there can't be understood by the reader. I've restored the adjective, and added a cite in the body instance to the effect that many touring artists consider it the most spectacular outdoor venue in the U.S. As for redlinks, I added a couple of redirects that handle the publishers in the cites. So the only ones left are for music venues, and my experience has been that these do get articles written for them over time – there are a lot of buildings and structures enthusiasts in WP, even for ones that may not exist anymore. So per WP:REDLINK I think these are worthy to stay in. And thanks again for the review. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)